and thanks for being with us. you can follow us online at mitchell reports. and here is ali velshi and stephanie ruhle. >> i'm ali velshi >> and i'm stephanie ruhle. international women and ali day. let's get a little smarter. february jobs released, 20,000 jobs, even though 180,000 were estimated, but wages -- and this is a huge positive -- are ticking up. >> the big question right now is looking forward to the rest of 2019 and saying, what does this job number mean for where the economy is going. >> there have been increasing calls from economists of a slow down in the economy. could this be the start of that in the job market? >> i think the big news really

was that wages went up, and that's great for the american worker. >> 2020 hopeful elizabeth warren, she's going to propose a new plan to take on tech. >> and the question of what they're allowed to buy, what data they're allowed to trade and how they should be behaving as corporate citizens. >> there is strong, even angry reaction to the sentence giving to former trump campaign paul manafort. >> 47 months, a federal judge sentences paul manafort to less than four years in jail. despite eight felony convictions on tax and bank fraud, the court declaring president trump's former campaign chairman, quote, lived an otherwise blameless life. >> i feel very badly for paul manafort. i think it's been a very, very tough time for him. but if you notice, both his lawyer, a highly respected man and a highly respected judge, the judge said there was no collusion with russia. >> democrats are calling paul manafort's sentencing

disrespectful, lenient, and an outrage. >> i think i spent more days in detention in high school than judge ellis thinks that paul manafort should spend in jail. >> from across the planet to our own backyards, today we celebrate female firsts. friday, march 8th, international women's day. >> what do women bring to this job? >> we bring the same thing that men bring to the job. we bring passion. we bring commitment, dedication and focus. >> you don't give up on your dreams. they are there. you just have to go for them. >> okay. lots to talk about, but we have another sudden departure at the trump white house. >> just a short time ago, the white house announced communications director bill shine resigned from his position and will serve as senior advisor to the 2020 reelection campaign. >> i never fully understand what this means when somebody leaves the white house and joins the campaign. >> well, it means like, we're still together, just in a different capacity. we didn't break up.

>> all right. joining us from the white house is nbc's hans nichols. hans, is this -- was this expected? >> not by us, not by our reporting, but the white house has blind sided us before. to your question, guys, on what this actually means, when someone goes to the campaign, we're never quite certain on what that role is. to use your metaphor, maybe they have broken up, but they just want to make it look like they're still together. what we do know is that he tendered his resignation last night and it was accepted. we also know, and this is the worst kept secret in washington, that job will always be done by president donald trump. he thinks he's his best press secretary e he thinks he's his best communications director. to do that job and serve a man who thinks he can do your job better is always going to be frustrating, always challenging. this is hey process dispute on how you run the communications shop. this isn't a doctrinal difference. when jim mattis resigned, that was over doctrine. do you consult with your allies. this most likely is about

tactics, when you have a briefing, if you're going to have briefings, which interview the president is going to do. that's what they're focused on. they're not focused on big picture strategic what direction this country should go on. guys? >> maybe it's about some level of conflict of interest. i want to bring gabe sherman is, special correspondent with vanity fair. gabe, you know the fox landscape. you wrote the book. >> yeah. >> we know that this resignation comes right after "the new york times" bombshell about shine -- excuse me, new yorker bombshell about shine's relationship with fox news, president trump's obvious preferred news network. >> yes. no, clearly you cannot look at this departure without looking at the wider context, which is that the house democrats are going to be aggressively investigating all aspects of this administration, including their possibly improper ties to rupert murdoch's media empire. eight we know he left fox over a year ago. how is he still bound do them? >> bill shine is sean hannity's

best friend, former producer, and that they speak all the time. bill shine is on a first-name basis with almost every fox personality there is. so clearly this is, you know, it's really hard to distinguish where the trump white house ends and where fox news begins. that's something -- >> is he still getting paid? >> he's getting a severance agreement, on the order of $7 million. you're basically drawing a salary. you could say that was baked in when i got the job. but he's taking money from rupert murdoch while working for the american people. >> some might think that's -- >> stinky at the very least. >> you never know when somebody leaves the white house whether it's a break up or whether the kamm main has a bigger need for bill shine. >> with less scrutiny. >> this is clearly -- this was not a relationship that was actually very close. bill shine and donald trump didn't know each other well before he got the job. donald trump hired him largely because of his close relationship with sean hannity. so this was not a close working relationship. my reporting indicated to that the two had been growing apart

as hans pointed out. you cannot be a communications director in this white house when your boss is doing all the communicating and not taking any direction. it's at odds with the job. >> i wish i knew that. anybody who thought anything different. this is a man who ran on i and i alone. and communications and branding, if there is one thing that's his jam, it's that. so there are no surprises. >> no surprises there. bill shine, i think he was basically finding it difficult to get a job at any other media company. he was front and center in a lot of the roger ailes sexual harassment scandals at fox news. he was accused in multiple lawsuits of covering up and enabling that sexual misconduct. meanwhile, he himself was not actually accused of wrongdoing. >> and still paid out 7 million bucks. >> he had really nowhere else to go. the trump white house is a landing pad for people who can't really get any other jobs. >> how about that. >> well said. >> if you can't get a job anywhere else, you can go work -- >> at the white house. that's kind of a fascinating thought in and of itself, isn't

it? >> fascinating is one word. >> thank you, gabe. hans, thank you as well. president trump and his former personal lawyer and fixer michael cohen are -- talk about a break up -- they're going back and forth in a war of words on twitter this morning. president trump is now claiming that michael cohen not only asked for a pardon, directly asked him for a pardon. he tweets, quote, bad lawyer and fraud roadster michael cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a pardon. his lawyers totally contradicted him. he lied. additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. i said no. he lied again. he also badly wanted to work at the white house. he lied. >> okeydoke. in february, michael cohen testimony before the house oversight and reform committee and he denied claims of requesting a pardon from president trump. former federal prosecutor jessica roth joins us now. i say to you, ali first, if michael cohen lied just a week

ago on the hill -- >> he's going to be in hot water. >> it's like, come on, all your turning over a new leaf, i care about the american people. we know michael cohen, no surprise, relied on twitter's comments. just another set of lies by the president. let me remind you, today is international women's day. you may want to used to to apologize for your own lies and dirty deeds to women, like karen mcdougal and stephanie clifford. is this bad for -- so, yes. now michael cohen pointing the finger again at donald trump and the hush money payments, trying to distract us from the fact that michael cohen is the one who facilitated it. can these two continue to point the finger at one another when they're both in the dirtiest of pools? >> we have two flawed individuals, the tweets gives us a contradiction between the two highly flawed witnesses. it's going to be difficult to

untangle what the truth is about the pardons, which i think is the most significant issue. unless we have other witnesses who have direct knowledge about those conversations and communications. hopefully witnesses who are less flawed in terms of their credibility than these two. and also documents and texts that would back up one version or the other and lend credence to what actually occurred. >> what about the fact in the end nobody got a pardon? does it matter if michael cohen asked or if trump hinted if he didn't give him one? >> well, it depends why we're asking, right? there's no legal effect -- >> asking for a pardon generally like sheriff joe arpaio might have been is different for asking for a pardon -- >> people can apply for pardons. there is a whole process. usually people don't ask the president directly for a pardon. the reason why it is particularly significant here, as you were suggesting, if it is suggested some quid pro kbquo, won't flip on you if you give me a promise or promise of a

pardon, that is highly problematic. that is even the kind of thing our new attorney general william barr suggested he would see as a potential charge -- >> is it legally problematic? >> it can be construed as obstruction of justice, witness tampering. holding out the idea of a pardon, the promise of a pardon in exchange for the person not testifying, or testifying in a way that doesn't implicate you. so it's highly problematic. >> but not surprising. >> how are you as a former federal prosecutor make sense of this? as stephanie said, michael cohen went to congress last week, apologized for lying the last time. finds himself were a jail sentence because he lied to congress the last time. is it conceivable that he lied again last week? >> i feel like everything is conceivable at this point. as i said, it's hard to know what to make here. we have two very flawed witnesses going against one another. >> you can't as a prosecutor or investigator, treat these witnesses the same way.

michael cohen can be squeezed the same time way. it's much harder to squeeze the president of the united states. it's harder to find out. >> as i said earlier, what i would want to do is find other witnesses who have fewer flaws. >> except the other people, we're talking rudy giuliani and lanny davis. mother teresa isn't hanging around trump tower. >> i'd turn to the documents. the text messages, phone calls, maybe we don't have direct evidence. maybe we have more in the nature of circumstantial evidence. we may not have the content of communications, but we could have time stamps for communications that would be highly suggestive of communications happening at a particular time. for example, right after the search warrants were conducted on michael cohen's residence. >> michael cohen had a habit of reporting everything. >> president trump doesn't text, doesn't e-mail, rarely signs his name. >> every day something happens, i think this can't possibly be happening. >> i feel so bad for fiction writers. >> no kidding. >> so bad. >> jessica, thank you very much.

jessica roth is a former federal prosecutor. >> all right. when we come back, we're talking about something ali and i love. >> in a normal world this would be a lead story. >> in a normal world. weaker than expected jobs report from february. when it came to the number of jobs added to the economy, some people said, wait, we thought we were getting 180, we got 20,000. maybe that's good news. we're at full employment. the good news is about wages. we're going do break down those numbers next. wages ticking up is what we need. >> here's a live look at the dow which a probably this reaction is about job numbers. might be flukey. we'll talk about that when we come back. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®.

tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options.

i can customize each line for soeach family member?e yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need, and still save hundreds of dollars. do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $250 back when you buy a new samsung galaxy. click, call, or visit a store today.

. first friday of the month, which means it is the employment report for february of 2019. every month it's the month before. here's the headline. unemployment is down .2 of a percent, 3.8%. that's the good news, we talk about is the good news. i have been telling people 25 years, ignore this number, it is not actually number. the denominator keeps changing. you can't measure something constantly month to month. this is the thing you have to look at, the number of jobs created every month. and in february it has been an outlier. it was particularly poor. we look for at least 150,000 or more per month to keep things steady. we created 20,000 new jobs in the united states in february versus 180,000 that economists

were expecting. this is unusual. every month when we get the jobs number, we also get revisions for the two prior months, and both of those prior months were gang busters. in december of 2018, the number has been revised upward by 5,000, so we created 227,000 jobs in december of 2018. january's number was revised up by 7,000. this is a very big number. 31 # 1,000. keep this in mind. december 227, january 31 # 1. february 20,000. that's a bit of a problem. here is what stephanie was talking about, though. average hourly wages are up. they're up compared to last year by 3.4%. when you calculate that amount you have to think about what inflation is doing. inflation is relatively low right nows, that's actually a real wage increase. for a lot of people it's not where they think things should be. when you look at a 3.8% unemployment rate, one would assume wages would be going up at a pace that is higher than 3.4% year over year. that's where we are.

if there is good news in this otherwise not so good report, that's it, that wages are up. steph? >> and wages has been the issue. >> correct. >> since the obama administration. at the end of the obama administration, we were at basic full employment. >> correct. >> wages was the issue. that's what we need to go up. joining us now, our dear friend cnbc editor john harwood. john, depending which side of the aisle you sit on, you can pick and choose which data you want. today larry kudlow is saying this jobs number is a silly flukey number. it's not reflective of anything. is he right, or are we starting to see signs that this is the canary in the coal mine and we have bad times ahead? >> well, i think it's too early to say how flukey it is. it certainly seems to be an outlier. we are still at an average of more than 185,000 jobs a month, if you smooth it out and look over the last several months. so i wouldn't draw the conclusion that we are headed for more numbers like 20,000.

however, we already know that the economy is slowing down. it slowed down during the course of 2018. we had 4.2% growth in the second quarter, 3.4% in the third, 2.6% in the fourth, and the fed is now expecting 2.3% growth for 2019, lower than that for 2020. so the reality is the white house is not achieving a lasting, at least so far as the information we have now, a lasting rate of 3% growth and we're just going to have to see how much that slow down occurs and whether it gets worse. >> let's talk about what stephanie was talking about. these are macro numbers. and to people earning a wage, it's like what are y'all talking about? let's talk about what's happening with my wage. wages are ticking up. >> good news. >> according to the federal reserve, however, household net worth took a hit in 2018. the stock market was ticking along nicely until the last quarter which is when the trade

war ticked up and the stock market went down. households lost a net collective $3.7 trillion. that's the biggest drop in household wealth since the recession really. what do you make of these things? the market has come back since then. >> yes, but i do think it underscores the importance of calming trade fears right now for the administration. that was a very turbulent fourth quarter in the stock market. and if you look at things -- ways in which policy might misfire in ways that could cause this ten year expansion to come to an end and slip into recession, economists that i talk to say that a extended trade conflict could be that mistake. so you see the administration trying to head toward a soft landing of these talks with china, to agree to keep talking, get some soybean purchases, get tariffs off, but the fact that the ambassador to china, terry

bran stat said today, we're not that close to tway deal is concern for the markets and the administration. >> let's talk about a subset of wages i know matters a lot to me. the gender pay gap. it is still an issue. i remember a year ago when larry kudlow was still your colleague at cnbc. he said the gender pay gap didn't exist. he was wrong then. and if he repeats himself today, he'd be wrong now because women in the united states were earning 82% of what men did in 2017. that means it would take a woman 47 extra days of work to do the same thing as her male counterpart. >> and if we close the gap at the rate we're going -- somebody told me it's going to be 80 years or something before it closes. >> i don't understand why it still exists. it just makes absolutely no sense. >> i guess the point is -- we can keep looking into why it exists or we can decide, john, what fixes it? do we need policy prescriptives to actually fix this? because the free market doesn't seem to be doing it on its own.

>> well, i don't know how you can have a policy fix that actually solves this problem. so i do think it is a persistent problem and one that will be long lasting. for all the efforts of people in the obama administration or the trump administration -- president likes to say ivanka trump has created millions of jobs and championing causes of this kind. but i think it's very difficult to move the needle very quickly on this, just like it's very difficult to move the needle on racial disparities and income. >> president obama did try to make efforts to -- >> the led better law. >> compensation transparency. >> yes. >> when you don't know what your peers are being paid, how can you ask more? >> it may not be a federal government policy prescriptive, but corporate -- >> corporate boards -- >> universities can do it. >> we saw it at sales force.

two women walked into mark benioff's office. look at people across the firm. one day, he took with a human resources program, he took every job function and every person's name and he righted the wrong. it did cost him, i want to say, something like 5 million bucks that day. but he fixed it. >> you have to have people on the board who think this is a problem. >> well, to that point, the changes in corporate governance that elizabeth warren, for example, is running on, some different mandates in terms of what corporations need to have represented on their boards, that's a potential game changer, i think more than any dictate from the government to the private sector right now. >> ali, if people want to argue affirmative action isn't fair, quotas aren't fair, equal pay -- >> is fair. >> for equal work is fair. >> that's fair. that's not -- >> i'm not asking you to give me a job that i don't deserve, but the job you've given me, make sure i'm getting equal pay. >> steph, you're right.

transparency is a major element of long-term solutions. >> john harwood is talking about elizabeth warren. you can see on the bottom of the screen tonight at 6:00 p.m., elizabeth warren is going to be talking to ari melber on the beat. they will be discussing this particular issue. >> and other issues. she is talking on one of, i would say, the most influential industries out there. elizabeth warren earlier today called for a huge shake up in the tech sector. aimed at breaking up companies like amazon and facebook. quote, 25 years ago, facebook, google and amazon did not exist. now they're among the most valuable and well-known companies on the planet. it is a great story, but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets. the new push by warren could signal a new era pitting government against big tech as house democrats prepare for new oversight in the industry. we know that amy klobuchar is going to take this on, digital privacy. and they're trying to review the now defunct fcc net neutrality

rules with new legislation. we have to remind you where is elizabeth warren? she's going to be speaking at south by southwest. that is all about altec. >> at least this week is altec. this idea of breaking up monopolies and antitrust is not a uniquely liberal idea. this is one that is accepted, the lessons we learned from standard oil and monopolies. >> but breaking up a monopoly and blocking a merger are two different things. >> right. it's a good issue and we should be tackling it. so that will be 6:00 tonight. joining us now is politico's chief economist, economic correspondent ben white. ben, you know, elizabeth warren does speak to a particular audience who will find this very appealing. but there is something to be said about this. there are a whole lot of people who are tech experts and who are very, very pro business who agree that the power that these tech companies have accumulated is potentially dangerous. >> too much. >> no, absolutely. i don't think it's purely a left

wing liberal idea. and i think you mentioned south by southwest. there are plenty of small start up tech folks there and vcs who don't love the power that facebook, google and amazon have. so there will be some receptive audience there as well. and her basic idea is, you know, you can't control both a giant platform like google and amazon and facebook do and then dominate what is transacted on the platform as well. so she would essentially separate the platform operators from everything that happens on their platform. and it's big and it's bold and it's going to be difficult to achieve. it would take both big legislation and regulations to go back and break up mergers so it's hard -- >> just stay on that. can you put the tooth paste back in the tube? to say let's break what's app, instagram and facebook, i'm not sure how you value that. because since those acquisitions happened, the value is significantly greater. so while it makes a bold statement -- and she chose a position realistically -- do you actually think something like

that would happen? >> i don't realistically think it will happen. but, you know, things have happened we didn't expect to happen before. ali was talking about breaking up some of the old giant monopolies. you're right. she would have to put regulators in the antitrust division of the justice department and elsewhere who would be willing to be incredibly aggressive in targeting stuff like facebook and instagram and putting the tooth paste back in the tube. i don't know structurally if she can do that, but at least the direction would be to not allow more of those type of mergers and looking at possibly unpacking some of the ones that exist. incredibly ambitious. i do think this is more of the democratic ideas primary than it is something that is in our imminent future, that these things are going to get busted up. >> let's talk about the merger of comcast and nbc, this company, or charter and at&t. the reason we allow these mergers to take place is because there are regulations that are put into place to manage them. >> right. >> there are arguments about

whether they're successful or not. but with the tech industry, we're not even regulating that side. so if you are one of these big tech companies, afraid of this, you know, being broken up, wouldn't it be better to go halfway down that road and say let's agree to some reasonable regulation to avoid people coming in and breaking us up? >> i think that's absolutely right. and that's where it's going to show itself in the privacy debate you mentioned amy klobuchar and the work she's doing there. i think some of these companies realize that a lot of public backlash against them is because people are afraid of how their data is being used, who it's being sold to. so they're going to have to be proactive and not try to block all of that stuff. they're going to have to work with regulators and accept the fact that they've breached people's privacy in massive ways and they're going to have to accept regulation on that front. i think in future mergers and acquisitions, they're going to have to be wary of the fact that the trend is moving against them. and that regulators eventually will step in and try to block some of this stuff. so if you're facebook, google,

amazon, you really have to be not trying to stand in the way of all new regulation like these industries have done in the past but instead say we screwed up a lot of these areas. we would rather work with you than have a president elizabeth warren bust us up in a few years. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> always great to have you here. >> have a good weekend. >> you, too. while we are awaiting details of the mueller report, one question is being asked. what if it calls into question whether the president of the united states should be indicted? next we're going to be speaking to j.t. smith, a man who was faced with that same question back in the 1970s. >> and an important programming note. this sunday as robert mueller continues his investigation, we're digging into what we know about the relationship between president trump and vladimir putin. watch "russia if you're listening." trump and putin hosted by me sunday 9:00 p.m. eastern here on msnbc. after months of wearing only a tiger costume,

we're finally going on the trip i've been promising. because with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. ♪ so even when she outgrows her costume, we'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure together. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only when you book with expedia.

your but as you get older,hing. it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

president's former campaign manager will stay behind bars, but not for as long as federal guidelines suggested he should. the sentencing guidelines in paul manafort's virginia case in which he was convicted of crimes, including conspiracy against the united states,

recommended 19 1/2 to 24 years. that is nowhere close to what manafort was given. >> the judge, instead, cited manafort's, quote, otherwise blameless life. having a sentence just 47 months, under four years. he was given credit for the time he's already served, bringing the total time he'll serve for the virginia case to just under three years and two months. he still faces sentencing in his d.c. case, but even a maximum there would only bring his prison time up to about 14 years, which is below the lower range in the estimate that was recommended to the judge yesterday. >> the life thing was interesting. >> it's not like this is a one-off. it was ten years. >> it's been -- anyway -- >> martha stewart was one off. >> right. a new question as we wait for special counsel robert mueller to finish up his investigation, quote, what if the mueller report demands bold action?

>> that is a topic explored by j.t. smith who is executive assistant to attorney general elliott richardson, the man who resigned when ordered by his president richard nixon to fire special prosecutor archibald cox setting up what came to be known as the saturday night massacre. >> joining us is j.t. smith, now retired attorney who worked with genrich ardern son in 1973. good to see you. >> can i go first? please. >> did your thesis change last night. your piece posted yesterday. when we saw how paul manafort was treated, to say it was with kid gloves would be a gift, has your viewpoint changed as far as what bold action was? because he was given a gift yesterday. >> no, my viewpoint isn't influenced by what judge ellis decided was right for paul manafort. i basically think that's a side show. >> all right. let's talk about your op-ed where you say very bluntly if mr. barr, the attorney general, determined that mr. mueller's

findings compel legal action, he should reconsider the policy against indictment of a sitting president. i want to remind our viewers, as we await this mueller report, it is a policy. it's the office of legal counsel that guides prosecutors in how they are to act with respect to indicting a president. it's not the law. >> that's correct. and my op-ed aims to point out the context in which that opinion was first developed. it was that there was a vice-president serving under nixon. nixon was under the watergate cloud. the vice-president was provably a corrupt man. and the question was how most expeditiously to get agnew out of a heartbeat away. there were three possible answers to the question of the indictability of a vice-president and a president. one was neither indictable, the other would be both be

indictable. the third alternative was vice-president indictable, president not indictable. the only way to handle that situation, that context was a determination that the vice-president but not the president was indictable for the simple reason that the nixon white house would not have allowed richardson to indict agnew in a context where it was a precedent for potential indictment of richard nixon. so the white house didn't want impeachment because they were afraid if impeachment proceedings began against agnew, they would also roll in nixon. >> every day we talk about wait till we see the mueller report, wait till we see it. we might not ever see it. the special prosecutor of your era created what we would call a road map that congress then followed in the watergate hearings. but that road map today is still a secret. why not reveal it? and if the nearly 50-year-old document is still under seal, how can we expect we are going

to see any substantial part of the mueller report to be made public? >> well, i don't know, stephanie, about the so-called secret road map. i do know that jaworski as successor to cox put out an indictment naming nixon as an unindicted coconspirator. but that's as far as my knowledge goes. my op-ed, as it pains to say, whatever the determination of the justice department and attorney general barr, that whatever information mueller develops ought to be shared with the public and the congress. it's the simple matter that if they adhere to the policy of no indictment of the sitting president, and that the judgment of the sitting president should be left to the political and public processes, then those processes need the transparency

and sunlight of mueller's information may provide. >> we talked to liz holtz man, former d.a. and member of congress, and she often says the change after the saturday night massacre was actually in public opinion, which guided republicans in congress about what to do. and without that shift in public opinion -- in other words, at the moment, donald trump is not an albatross around the neck of elected republicans, and, hence, you are not going to see the same action taken by congress as was taken in the nixon era. >> his approval rating is up. >> correct, his approval rating is up. what do you make of that there? because if this is ultimately something congress has to push the justice department to do, what happens here? >> i am as depressed as others about the lack of vigor on the senate side of the congress, but i'm given some hope by the

recent pushback on the declaration of a national emergency. that in and of itself could prove out to be part of an impeachment proceeding. and so all of us have to ultimately hope that the institutions of this government -- constitutional institutions that have stood up now for some 200 years, will bear the burden of this rather exceptional president. >> and quickly, before we go, your take. bill barr will be acting in the best interest of the american people or he'll prioritize acting at the pleasure or discretion of the president? >> i, from what i know of bill barr, believe that there is a chance that the combination of barr and mueller will prove to be a combination of principled

men, such as was the case with elliott richardson and archibald cox. so i think we're blessed to have two principled men on the hot spot as this saga unfolds. and i trust or hope and trust that together they will do the right thing. >> j.t. smith, good to see you, sir. he was assistant executive attorney to elliott richardson in 1973. >> check out his op-ed, it's compelling. the census bureau planning to ask for the information of millions of noncitizens as part of its data collection efforts. how it could affect the responses. next, you're watching "velshi & ruhle." e.than tylenol extra str. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this?

i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain. might mean a trip back to the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today.

neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. with tough food, your dentures may slip and fall. fixodent ultra-max hold gives you the strongest hold ever to lock your dentures. so now you can eat tough food without worry. fixodent and forget it.

webut some of us turn outhose dreams...... into action...

the bookers. the doers. the 'hit that confirmation button and let's go!'- ers! because bookers know that the perfect place to stay... is right there for the booking. be a booker at booking.com the world's #1 choice for booking accommodations. the census bureau is asking the department of homeland security for files on millions of immigrants, including noncitizens, as it collects data ahead of the 2020 census according to the associated press, the data would, quote, give the census bureau a view of immigrants' citizenship status that is even more precise than what could be gathered indoor to door canvassing according to bureau research. the request comes as a second federal judge ruled that the trump administration cannot add as question on citizenship to the 2020 census. and as the supreme court has already preparing to hear

arguments on the case next month. it is not uncommon for federal agencies like the irs or social security to provide the census bureau with supplemental information, but the associated press says this level of data dump would, quote, be apparently unprecedented even though the census bureau cannot share personal data that they collect with other agencies. let's look at what we know about the trump administration's plans for the 2020 census. the census is taken, as you know, every ten years starting in 1790, by the way. it's mandated by the constitution. and the results determine the number of congressional representatives in each state and how federal funding is allocated for resources, like roads and bridges. 2020 is going to be the first year that all residents will be able to fill out the census online, which the bureau hopes is going to increase responses and save time and money. paper forms will still be available, however. let's talk a little bit more about this with victoria de francesco. she's a professor at the l.b.j. public affairs university of

texas and an msnbc contributor. >> okay. so, help us through this. to the average viewer, to the average eye, they might say, okeydoke, they're asking for more information. more information is good. walk us through the risks and why people will not want to participate. >> right, stephanie. so let's start with the back ground of the last couple of years during the trump administration regarding immigrants and immigrant status. it's one of fear. it's one of folks being very scared that they are going to be hauled off, deported, their family members, their loved ones are going to be detained. so there is this larger environment of fear. and when you take an already very fearful population and you ask them to give you sensitive information, namely, what their immigration status is, that pushes folks further and further into the shadows, which then means folks are not going to be answering the census and they're just going to be ignoring it and saying, i'm too scared to answer it. but what happens is that affects

all of us because the funding that is determined through the census, as ali was just saying, our roads, our bridges, medicaid funding, head start funding -- it affects all of us. and also the redistricting. so we're going to be seeing the money not being allocated correctly, and also states that should be getting more seats because of growth in their population, not getting those seats. and states where actually losing population perhaps holding onto that. so it's just a big hot mess would be my take on this. >> public health issues are not dealt with because of this very fear, people don't want to answer certain questions on the census so they don't put it in. you have great swaths of the population who are not representative. san francisco judge had some strong words for wilbur ross in his court decision on wednesday saying, quote, he acted in bad faith in disclosing the basis of his decision to include the citizenship question and used voting rights as a pretext to justify it. est said -- >> what does that mean? >> yeah, what does that mean? >> so, the voting rights act,

wilbur ross said one of the reasons they wanted to include the citizenship question was to get a better statistical handle on the voting age population to then go ahead and strengthen the voting rights act. i don't know how they ultimately can connect the two. there are a lot of ways to strengthen the voting rights act and to make voting easier. i don't think this is one way. let me just speak as a survey researcher. the survey research 101 is you simplify survey instruments to maximize response rates. that's what you do. and what they're doing here is making it infinitely more complicated. so folks are not going to be answering. and the fact is that there have been two instances in the past where the census bureau has shared information. the first one was japanese internment. the second one was after 9/11 for arab americans. so add that to this fearful immigrant rhetoric we see in the trump administration and people are not going to fill this out. >> victoria, good to talks to

you on this. it is a big issue. important we discuss it. the professor at the lbj public affairs at the university of texas. >> and i have been talking about it all day. it is international women's day and the world bank is out with its bank is out with its rankings, where the united states ranks? there is a spoiler alert but sadly not a surprise, we are not first. you are watching "velshi and ruhle" on msnbc. >> very close, very close. >> no. for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance.

get to know geico and even our pets know to go because it's the easiest way to save 30% on all the medications we carry. so skip the search and go directly to petmeds.com now. with tough food, your dentures may slip and fall. fixodent ultra-max hold

gives you the strongest hold ever to lock your dentures. so now you can eat tough food without worry. fixodent and forget it.

you should meet our newest team schwab, bmember, tecky.do that, i'm tecky. i can do it all. go ahead, ask it a question. tecky, can you offer low costs and award-winning full service with a satisfaction guarantee, like schwab? sorry. tecky can't do that. schwabbb! calling schwab. we don't have a satisfaction guarantee, but we do have tecky! i'm tecky. i ca... are you getting low costs and award-winning full service? if not, talk to schwab.

today is international women's day and what women continue to make strives in ending discrimination. there is still a whole lot of work to do. a new study from the world bank finds women on average have only three quarters of the legal protection given to men when it comes to gender equality in work. the ten year study reviewed data from 187 countries, equal play, marriage and divorce laws and parental leave and running a business and this one kills me. the ability to open a bank account managing assets and pension assets. six countries came out on top of perfect scores 100. they give both women and men

equal rights of all the measured areas, denmark, belgium, sweden and latvia, france, and luxembourg. the united states ranked 65th place. the u.s. has no federal paid family leave policy, according to world bank, workplace in equality contributes to $160 trillion loss in earnings worldwide. >> we don't say tril mulion mucn the show. >> women can move around on jobs as much as men can. >> access to capitol over bank accounts. >> harder when you combine entrepreneurship and access to capitol. that's a place where women don't do well. it is not a legal issue but it

is societal issue. >> the lowest in parental leave. >> i point this out and one more thing. after those twelve weeks or 18 weeks for parents that the united states must address access to affordable child care. >> yep. >> you want to see parents go to work? help us figure out how to pay for it. >> in case you are heading to austin for sxsw, for information on where to see them in austin, follow nbc news on twitter. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ when you have nausea, ♪ heartburn, ♪ indigestion, ♪ upset stomach, ♪ diarrhea... girl, pepto ultra coating will treat your stomach right. ♪nausea, heartburn, ♪ indigestion, upset stomach, ♪ diarrhea... try pepto with ultra coating.

bookers book now and ask their boss later.. [do you want breakfast or no?] [definitely breakfast.] be a booker at booking.com

lrall right, thanks for watching "velshi and ruhle." i will see you back here at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> i am stephanie ruhle. i will be back here, you know what i am doing sunday night? >> russia, are you listening, trump and putin, 9:00 p.m. sunday night. i think of it as a companion guide to the mueller report when it comes out. our friend katy tur takes over the coverage because she's about to perform. >> you are making fun of me for wearing all black today. >> i am not sure what you are doing at 3:00. if there is a puppet show in need of a puppeteer, you will do it. >> i am going to do it. >> i think you look great. >> i